Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY,THE3D DAY OF FEBRUARY201414TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 28705 of 2013 (K) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VINODAN A.K, S/O. GOPALAN, CLUSTER CO-ORDINATOR, BLOCK RESOURCE CENTRE, VATAKARA, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER, SARVA SIKSHA ABHIYAN KOZHIKKODE.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOZHIKKODE. *ADDL. R.3. & R4 IMPLEADED:
3. THE STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR SARVA SIKSHA ABHHIYAN (SSA) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.
4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURM -695 001. *ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED2811/2013 IN I.A.NO. 15938/2013. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. FAYAZ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0302-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. W.P.(C).NO.28705/2013-K: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
OF THE PETITIONER DATED266-2012. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKKODE DATED127-2012. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED1611-2013 OF THE PROJECT OFFICER, S.S.A KOZHIKKODE. EXT.P.4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED TO JASEERA BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER DTD. 02/07/2013. EXT.P.5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
IN W.P.(C).NO.15775/13 DTD. 28/06/2013 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P.6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
DTD. 18/06/2012 ISSUED BY THE D.P.I. EXT.P.7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 26/04/2013 ISSUED BY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SARVA SIKSHA ABIYAN TO ONE SREEJA UNNIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 28705 of 2013 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2014 JUDGMENT
The petitioner while working as Higher Secondary school teacher in an aided school had lost employment due to division fall. Thereafter, on the basis of Ext.P1 order issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was appointed as 'Cluster Co-ordinator' at the Block Resource Centre (BRC) at Thodannur. Later, on the basis of the request made by the petitioner, he was transferred to the nearest station at BRC, Vatakara, as per Ext.P2. The 1st respondent had now issued Ext.P3 transferring the petitioner from BRC, Vatakara to BRC, Tuneri. It is challenging Ext.P3, to the extent it transfers the petitioner, this Writ Petition is filed.
2. One of the main contentions is that the 1st respondent is not the competent authority to transfer Cluster Co-ordinators under the Scheme of Sarva Siksha W.P.(C). No. 28705 of 2013 2 Abhiyan Programme. Secondly, it is contended that the transfer is made against norms which insist that the Co- ordinators should be posted as far as possible near to their place of residence.
3. In the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is conceded that the appointments and transfers of the Cluster Co-ordinators are usually done by the Deputy Directors of Education. But it is mentioned that, the District Project Officers are orally directed to transfer Cluster Co-ordinators in particular cases. In the case at hand the District Project Officer might have transferred the petitioner in the light of such instructions. However it is mentioned that no ratification with respect to the transfer was issued. The 2nd respondent reiterated that there is no ulterior motive involved in the action and it was done only for smooth functioning of the BRCs.
4. The Petitioner had produced Ext.P6 circular and Ext.P7 reply obtained under the Right to Information Act, to point out that 2nd respondent is the competent authority to transfer Cluster Co-ordinators. Ext.P7 reply W.P.(C). No. 28705 of 2013 3 it is also mentioned that the norms prescribed is to the effect that postings should be given at vacant places as far as nearer to the place of residence.
5. The Writ Petition was amended incorporating relief to the extent of directing a re-posting of the petitioner to the original station at BRC, Vatakara. Considering the fact that the transfer order was issued not by the 2nd respondent and that the impugned order was not ratified by the 2nd respondent in any manner, this Court is of the opinion that it is for the 2nd respondent to look into the matter and to take an appropriate fresh decision. Needless to observe that the 2nd respond should consider the norms prescribed with respect to posting of Cluster Co-ordinators and shall also take into consideration of the grievances expressed by the petitioner with respect to his inconvenience in working at the station to which he is now transferred. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to re- consider Ext.P3 impugned order of transfer to the extent W.P.(C). No. 28705 of 2013 4 it orders transfer of the petitioner, after affording opportunity of personal hearing to petitioner and other affected persons, if any. An appropriate fresh decision in the matter shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Sd/-C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE MJL